Real damage from Wikileaks
December 31st, 2010 at 11:28 am by David FarrarStephen Stratford sent me this story at The Atlantic. It looks at how Wikileaks has damaged the pro-democracy movement in Zimbabwe and helped prop up Mugabe. It is a great example of why secrecy does not always mean bad. When dealing with evil dictators, a lack of secrecy will often help the dictator only.
Last year, early on Christmas Eve morning, representatives from the U.S., United Kingdom, Netherlands, and the European Union arrived for a meeting with Zimbabwean opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai. …
The topic of the meeting was the sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe by a collection of western countries, including the U.S. and E.U. Tsvangirai told the western officials that, while there had been some progress in the last year, Mugabe and his supporters were dragging their feet on delivering political reforms. To overcome this, he said that the sanctions on Zimbabwe “must be kept in place” to induce Mugabe into giving up some political power. The prime minister openly admitted the incongruity between his private support for the sanctions and his public statements in opposition. If his political adversaries knew Tsvangirai secretly supported the sanctions, deeply unpopular with Zimbabweans, they would have a powerful weapon to attack and discredit the democratic reformer.
Later that day, the U.S. embassy in Zimbabwe dutifully reported the details of the meeting to Washington in a confidential U.S. State Department diplomatic cable. And slightly less than one year later, WikiLeaks released it to the world.
The reaction in Zimbabwe was swift. Zimbabwe’s Mugabe-appointed attorney general announced he was investigating the Prime Minister on treason charges based exclusively on the contents of the leaked cable.
The consequences may be servere:
It’s difficult to see this as anything but a major setback for democracy in Zimbabwe. Even if Tsvangirai is not charged with treason, the opponents to democratic reforms have won a significant victory. First, popular support for Tsvangirai and the MDC will suffer due to Mugabe’s inevitable smear campaign, including the attorney general’s “investigation.” Second, the Prime Minister might be forced to take positions in opposition to the international community to avoid accusation of being a foreign collaborator. Third, Zimbabwe’s fragile coalition government could collapse completely. Whatever happens, democratic reforms in Zimbabwe are far less likely now than before the leak.
To their supporters, WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange are heroes of the democratic cause. Assange himself has claimed that his organization promotes democracy by strengthening the media. But in Zimbabwe, Assange’s pursuit of this noble goal has provided a tyrant with the ammunition to wound, and perhaps kill, any chance for multiparty democracy. Earlier this month, Assange claimed that “not a single person, as far as anyone is aware, has been harmed” by Wikileaks’ practices. This is no longer true, if it ever was.
I am surprised the mainstream media have not covered the Zimbabwe angle more.
I’m all for less secrecy, but that is not the same as no secrecy. And in terms of who decides what remains secret – I prefer those I elect to Parliament to do so, rather than Julian Assange who is accountable to no one at all.
Related posts:
- Hope for Zimbabwe
- The Wikileaks rape charges
- So much for power sharing
- Oh sending a letter will do it
December 31st, 2010 at 11:35 am
I am surprised the mainstream media have not covered the Zimbabwe angle more.
Oh come on DPF, you should have worked out by now that the MSM and the likes of Mugabe are fellow-travellers.
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 11:39 am
For this act alone Assange deserves to hang. The destruction Mugabe has brought to a once great land is awful and just when they looked to be getting out of it this happens.
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 11:53 am
Floyd Abrams, who represented the New York Times in the Pentagon papers case, writes:
Why WikiLeaks Is Unlike the Pentagon Papers.
But WikiLeaks offers no articles of its own, no context of any of the materials it discloses, and no analysis of them other than assertions in press releases or their equivalent. As Princeton historian Sean Wilentz told the Associated Press earlier this month, WikiLeaks seems rooted in a “simpleminded idea of secrecy and transparency,” one that is “simply offended by any actions that are cloaked.”
Ironically, this view of the world may aid Mr. Assange in avoiding criminal liability for his actions.
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 11:57 am
This assumes that Mugabe would act with something resembling good faith. At a guess, he will act only as much as he is pushed. But Wikileaks should probably not have released this, regardless.
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 12:01 pm
David I think the article cited here is ludicrous. It is self-evidently not anti-democratic to have the leader of a major party exposed for misleading the voting public. The mistake being made in this article is to confuse a weakening in the standing of the good guy in Zimbabwean politics with a weakening of democracy.
Would this article have been written had it been Mugabe who had been caught out? Of course not.
A politician was dishonest and Wikileaks has caught him out. Is it not in the interests of democracy that leaders, even good guys, be held to account?
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 12:06 pm
Sadly the once-inhabitable Zimbabwe and South Africa have gone to shit. It’s very sad, but it’s sadly inevitable. If you’re white – get out while you can. There’s nothing that can be done, if they got rid of Mugabe, and there’ll be another tyrant.
Of course Mugabe does need to be executed, like Saddam, but I don’t expect this to happen any time soon.
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 12:07 pm
I just looked up “useful idiot” in the dictionary and there was a picture of ben
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Hang on, we should avoid open and transparent democracies because the people who don’t run open and transparent democracies might get mad? Let’s look at the context of this leak:
According to the leak, democracy is buggered in Zimbabwe
A leader fronted up and was open with other diplomats about where there were problems in the government
Those problems stem from Mugabe and Co.
Take Assange out of the equation, and does democracy automatically come to the people of Zimbabwe? No, it doesn’t. No pro-US interventionists can sit here and claim Assange has done any more damage to democracy in Zimbabwe than the United States has by failing to remove Mugabe from power. You can’t sit back and do nothing and then blame someone else when change is slow to happen.
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 12:13 pm
“By following the rules of the Film Actor’s Guild, the world can become a better place; that handles dangerous people with talk, and reasoning; that, is the FAG way. One day you’ll all look at the world us actors created and say, “wow, good going, FAG. You really made the world a better place, didntcha, FAG?”"
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 12:16 pm
“Take Mugabe out of the equation, and does democracy automatically come to the people of Zimbabwe?”
FYP, dog_eat_dog.
And the answer is, maybe. It would definitely stand a better chance of occuring.
So things that help keep him in place would be a bad thing? Yes.
Even if those things were done with the “best intentions? Yes.
Even if those things had other benefits? In that case you would be better off saying that those things were not universally good.
Which is what DPF said.
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Bens not a useful idiot hes just an idiot
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 12:24 pm
Ben raises a valid point.
And – there is no perfect filter of which leaks are good and which are bad, which may be enlightening, which may be damaging, which may have unintended or unforeseen consequences (for better or worse).
This disclosure in Zinbabwe may wreck chances of better democracy – but it could just as easily precipate moves to defeating Mugabe.
I don’t think open slather is a good thing, but I don’t think politicians should always have control over what is secret or not. They tend to suit themselves.
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 12:24 pm
Asange has admitted that his leaked documents were behind much of the upheavel in Kenya that saw over a thousand people killed. I guess those blacks didn’t count when he said no one was hurt.
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 12:24 pm
“Is it not in the interests of democracy that leaders, even good guys, be held to account?”
Shouldn’t this have been,
“Is it not in the interests of democracy that leaders, but only the good leaders, be held to account?”
Surely one definition of a good leader is one who CAN be held to account? So is it in the best interests of democracy that only the good guys get punished for being practical?
And you presuppose the existence of democracy in Zimbabwe, which we know is not true. In the absence of democracy, in a dictatorship, secrecy is important. How can any authoritarian be over thrown without some secrecy?
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Does does any authoritarian maintain power without enforcing secrecy?
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Can can you counter anothers secrecy with your own honesty?
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 12:43 pm
So we’re OK with the “natural rate” of democratic change (despite the leaks indicating that this is taking a hell of a long time) while a lot of people die under an oppressive regime, but it’s worse to talk about it than to initiate a regime change? I don’t really see the logic. Tsvangiri being charged with treason is not Assange’s fault, it’s Mugabe’s.
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 12:43 pm
So the people of Zimbabwe don’t believe the sanctions are good for their country.
But their Prime Minister secretly encourages the EU and US to keep going, which is against the wishes of the people.
All in the name of democracy?
I’m unsure why the Zimbabweans are rejecting them. Lets face it, they worked so well in bringing Saddam to heal.
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Actually it was the massive election fraud that caused the upheavel. All wikileaks did was expose that. It continues to amaze me how eagerly you surrender your principles to democracy just to criticise someone you dislike.
Ben certainly has a valid point. The power sharing agreement is a farce, to say that the democratic movement has been harmed by wikileaks is misleading at best. The power sharing agreement was more harmful to democracy in Zimabawe than anything else, a highy dubious arangement with a ruthless dictator allowing him to re-organise his power.
Not wikileaks or the US is to blame, but the cowardice and hypocrisy of the SA government by failing to pressure Mugabe into retirement.
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 12:58 pm
DPF: Earlier this month, Assange claimed that “not a single person, as far as anyone is aware, has been harmed” by Wikileaks’ practices.
But only a few months earlier he claimed:
And lefties on this thread: it’s a bit odd to claim there shouldn’t be any secrecy, while you yourself are hiding behind pseudonyms.
I think DPF should leak the names of all commentators on his blog.
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 1:04 pm
(Sigh). No. The MSM does not report much on Mugabe’s ill-deeds because most New Zealanders are not interested. The MSM, being full of liberals, is probably even more anti-Mugabe than the general population. Actually that is not hard, because most of the general population doesn’t know who he is and doesn’t particularly care.
Vote:The job of the MSM is to entertain readers and give them what they want, because then they will buy MSM newspapers and watch MSM TV etc.
December 31st, 2010 at 1:09 pm
s.russell – “The MSM, being full of liberals, is probably even more anti-Mugabe than the general population.”
I actually laughed out loud when I read this. They would be against him, if being consistent was important to them in any way, but in reality under the rules of political correctness he gets a free pass because of his skin colour. To criticise him would be some colonialist atrocity that makes you worse than hitler.
markm – “Bens not a useful idiot hes just an idiot”
He’s useful all right, just not to the good guys.
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 1:13 pm
The cables are being assessed and initially released by MSM, with Wikileaks repeating that. But why let facts get in the way of slagging someone off?
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 1:27 pm
Compare the odium with which Ian Smiths govt of Rhodesia was held in by the western media,and the UN etc, to that of the genocidal Mugabe.(who was conferred an honorary degree from a Scottish uni e.g, attended Popes funeral,supported by current SA govt)
Whether it’s the MSM,unis,political parties of the left and centre,and no matter what the issue is;
indigenous “rights”
colonialism
immigration
human rights etc
this simple formula applies; white man bad,black man good.
With that you can pass any modern course in politics,sociology,anthropology etc.
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 1:40 pm
Let me congratulate Put It Away and markm for their depth of contribution. At least they were brief.
Yes I suppose anything bad which happens to people who are good must be A Bad Thing, but actually democracy is a process and the bigger question here, which is hard but nevertheless important, is whether the greater transparency Wikileaks forces on politicians will on average produce better government. This question is not answered by observing there has been an increase in political attacks on one political leader in one country. Duh.
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 1:55 pm
ben, still missing the point completely- “democracy is a process”
Step one for the process of democracy in Zimbabwe is getting rid of Mugabe. Whatever step two is, it’s not going to happen until step one has been completed.
and the bigger question here, which is hard but nevertheless important, is whether the greater transparency Wikileaks forces on politicians will on average produce better government. This question is not answered by observing there has been an increase in political attacks on one political leader in one country. Duh.
No that is not the question, the question is “was it wise, and right, to release a particular cable that was clearly going to fuck up chances of democracy in Zimbabwe for the foreseeable future, and does it square with Assange’s platitudes that no-one has been harmed by his leaks”. Wikileaks could have vastly improved their “on average” effect on better government by keeping this one under wraps.
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 2:09 pm
The MSM, being full of liberals, is probably even more anti-Mugabe than the general population.
Surely you jest?
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Put it away.
Are you suggesting Wikileaks censor some of their ‘leaks’? Who do you suggest makes the decision on what should be held back?
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 2:27 pm
Although the following quote involves war and pacifism, the same principle is at work…
… which is that when something deemed good (desire for peace/openness) is fanatically applied in a fight only to the group most amenable to such things and ignored or otherwise unable to be applied to a competing group (who desire war/total control/secrecy), the results will be lethal, including the things deemed good.
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 2:39 pm
redeye they do that anyway, they claim not to leak anything that will put people in danger. You’d have to ask them who makes the decision. Presumably Assange, since he seems to make all the decisions.
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 2:47 pm
That could also be seen as trying to guilt people into war.
A logical paradox would be that everyone should join to fight, otherwise peace is impossible.
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 2:53 pm
The context of the quote itself, not to mention the time in which it was actually written, make it quite clear that people are already “into war”, whether they like it or not.
Much the same as Morgan Tsvangirai and the people of Zimbabwe are already in a life and death struggle with Mugabe.
Perhaps you can write something to Mugabe that will guilt him out of his power cravings – a poem perhaps.
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 3:06 pm
It depends a lot on the context. Lenin and Mussolini said similar things (and H Clinton and GW Bush).
WW II was quite a different scenario to Iraq II, but even then there is a place for pacifism, for example the Red Cross. And those that produce the food that the sailors risk their lives to bring have a passive involvement. So dissing pacifists does many a disservice.
Ultimately only Africa can solve Africa, if it can ever be done.
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 3:22 pm
How silly is it that it needs to be pointed out to people that you cannot bring about democracy by hampering the emergence of democracy?
This is what wikileaks has done. They have hampered the emergence of democracy in Zimbabwe.
The reflexive adherence to an ideal that “secrecy”is inherently bad is childish, IMO. And make no mistake, Wikileaks’ ideal of releasing all information is nothing more than the exercise of this reflex.
Secrecy is neither good nor bad. It is the information that is being kept secret that determines whether the secrecy is good or bad. In this case, the secrecy was a good thing, because it meant that a pro-democracy influence in a basket-case dictatorship did not suffer undue harm.
An important practical question is, what is the negative impact of wikileaks’ actions compared to the positive ones?
I think a strong case could be argued that the release of secrets damaging to good things would have far more negative an impact than a corresponding positive impact of releasing secrets damaging to a bad thing.
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 3:25 pm
“Much the same as Morgan Tsvangirai and the people of Zimbabwe are already in a life and death struggle with Mugabe
No, Tom Hunter. They are in a life and death struggle with the West and traitors who would sell them out to the West like Morgan Tsvangirai.
I can’t believe the hypocrisy of people here. Tsvangirai is sneakily going behind the backs fo the Zimbabwean people and asking outside powers to apply the screws to his own people, to hurt and probably kill his own people, and yet you supporters of freedom and democracy say the Zimbabwean people are not capable of making up their own minds about this disgusting individual?
If sanctions were popular with the Zimbabwean people, Tsvangirai would have absolutely nothing to fear from the wikileak.
But they are not. The sanctions are there not to help the Zimbabwean people, but to force regime change.
If the views of the people are so important, if democracy is so important to the likes of hypocrites like Tom Hunter, why not give the Zimbabwean people what they want – and lift sanctions?
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 3:25 pm
“Ultimately only Africa can solve Africa, if it can ever be done.”
Of course it can be done. Unless … are you saying there is something in Africa’s (metaphorical) genetic structure that prevents those particular humans from behaving similar to other humans living elsewhere in the world?
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 3:30 pm
You are being a bit selective here, tom. The wikileaks are harmful, but the power sharing argeement isn’t? That agreement itself has done far more damage by legitimising Mugabes power and can (and should be) viewed as the “pacifistic” approach the problem by the neighbouring African states, in particular SA. Not the wikileaks itself.
All the wikileaks did is expose how absurd that arangement is, when the PM has to conspire with other countries against the president while maintaining a facade.
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 3:34 pm
“Ultimately only Africa can solve Africa, if it can ever be done.”
Actually Africa has come out of a decade of pretty good economic growth, averaging at about 5% growth per annum, I believe. This coincides with a period of heavy Chinese engagement with the continent.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10677675
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 3:36 pm
“All the wikileaks did is expose how absurd that arangement is, when the PM has to conspire with other countries against the president while maintaining a facade.”
Actually no. Thats not ALL the wikileaks did. You just think it is the most relevant thing. But thats just, like, your opinion, man.
How are voters going to view it?
Vote:What does it then allow Mugabe to do?
What does it do to the balance of power in a power-sharing arrangement?
Does it mean that Tsvangirai will have to spend time reparing political damage, at the expense of achieving democratic change?
December 31st, 2010 at 3:38 pm
An important practical question is, what is the negative impact of wikileaks’ actions compared to the positive ones?
Yes. It’s something that’s difficult to judge, especially as some repercussions may continue for some time. And inevitably there will be collateral damage, Zimbabwe democracy one possible example. But not doing anything can be as damaging, concealing can be as damaging. It’s a complicated world.
are you saying there is something in Africa’s (metaphorical) genetic structure
No, not intended. Everyone else’s genetics are structured onn Africa’s. I would say that problems in Africa are that widespread and deepseated that it will be very difficult to resolve in the foreeable future.
It is ironic that the continent that is purportedly the cradle of human civilisation is probably the most uncivilised on the planet. But I think it is more a quirk of timing, the age we happen to be in now, rather than genetic structure.
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 3:49 pm
“Yes. It’s something that’s difficult to judge, especially as some repercussions may continue for some time.”
But as those repercussions become less knowable the further away they are, you have to put more stock in the more observable, first order impact of an action. In this case, how many lives has the wikileaks leaking saved? How many has it killed?
From there you can then look at the second order impacts, but then you have to rely on some fairly strong logic to make your case.
“It is ironic that the continent that is purportedly the cradle of…”
Like ten thousand spoons when all you need is a knife.
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 4:05 pm
Need more leaders and less greeders.
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 4:18 pm
This demonstrates the central flaw in the whole ethos of Assange and his Wikileaks organisation.
They are very good at standing up and trunpeting the cause of truth and openness, but are completely unwilling and unable to react when the effect of such disclosures is harmful to others.
I’m not saying that everything that he does is putting lives at risk, but it’s certain that in some cases, the lives of people ARE being placed at increased risk because Assange want’s to be the “Big man”.
A bit less press on him please, and a lot more on the ordinarly men and women who are putting themselves on the front line in Aid agencies and in the service of thier countries. They are in it ultimately for the needs of others. Assange is only in to this for himself.
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 4:47 pm
First you’d have to be correct in your assumption that Morgan Tsvangirai is the correct person to bring democracy to Zimbabwe.
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 4:54 pm
I’m being selective of lousy options on a descending scale. Of course the power sharing agreement is harmful, but that sort of observation is ignoring the central problem – that Mugabe is what is ultimately harmful. Every “solution” that spans off leaving him alive and/or in charge of the security forces is going to be a harmful solution. Wikileaks is more harmful than power-sharing.
But what alternatives to power-sharing were there? Civil war, like Spain 1937? Revolution like Romania or a hundred other places? My preference would have been a UN declaration that Zimbabwe had ceased to be a nation and that foreign troops would go in and take the bastard and his guns out, then stay to oversee a proper election – something more like Kosovo or Iraq. That would gain huge support from the world-wide humanitarian community, correct? You’d be a big supporter of such an option, or perhaps you’d be more inclined to the first two, no?
That’s a rhetorical question of course. The crappy power-sharing agreement was the best that could be attained in light of the fact that no one is willing to apply the only real solution. Given that, I judge it to be more harmful for Wikileaks to screw it up and take the country down the next peg to even more harmful solutions. Maybe we’ll get there anyway but it would be better for everybody if we went into it eyes open rather than falling backwards via a Wikileaks trapdoor.
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 5:05 pm
the lives of people ARE being placed at increased risk because Assange want’s to be the “Big man”.
Yes but he doesn’t have any obligation not to leak them. He isn’t required to agree with US foreign policy or even Australian foreign policy. He’s not required to keep information confidential under international law for if he was then no doubt the Hague would have already pursued it and they haven’t. The only legal jeopardy he’s in as I understand it is from a US Federal law – I don’t know the details.
Isn’t that correct?
BTW I don’t agree with what he’s done and doing and will continue to do for a very long time I imagine but not for this reason for a different one.
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 5:16 pm
True. But democracy is almost always about selecting the least-worse option.
I had a lot of time for Abel Muzorewa back in the day, but all the left-wingers I knew at the time loved Mugabe – the very archetype of hard-assed, uncompromising, pure revolutionary fervor, untainted by any of those nonsensical “peaceful” compromises with the Smith government that Muzorewa was guilty of.
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 5:18 pm
What Tom Hunter says at 4:54pm. Least worst is usually best, especially in Africa, but it is not for Mr Assange to adjudicate.
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 5:27 pm
I disagree. Ever since the power sharing agreement, Zimabawe has dropped of the radar and Mugabe can continue with his methods. The wikileaks shows just how fragile and desperate the situation is. Mugabe was already getting to Tsvangirai and his supporters.
The key is and has always been the African states, but in particular the SA government. They failed to put enough pressure to oust Mugabe. Partly because they did not want to be seen as going against a fellow “freedom” fighter, partly because they feared a collapse of Zimbabawe and an influx of refugees.
If SA really wanted to, they could put the pressure on Mugabe and force him into exile. Given the situation, it would probably be necessary to have foreign troops in the country under a UN command/resolution to stabilise the country. The ideal moment was when he had lost the election even in the eyes of his supporters.
The agreement as it stands will most certainy lead to civil war, with or without the leaks. The power sharing just prolonged the inevitable and enabled Mugabe to restore his power. The leaks may just have given him a good opportunity, but it is more like the proverbial straw that broke the camels back.
You are saying the straw is way more harmful than the load that was burdened onto it beforehand.
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 5:41 pm
Do you read the newspaper?
e.g. this from the Dominion Post editorial:
It’s not hard to find similar articles.
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 6:31 pm
Well, ok. A civil war in that basket case of a country would be on the cards irrespective of whether a power sharing agreement or some other “arrangement” was in place. Saffa has it’s cross to bear with regards to the Zimbabwe situation, no doubts, but the “straw” wikileaks leak could be a catalyst for that (civil war) eventuality. It may not be either but it certainly doesn’t help!
Assange and his lot are idealistic children. What’s the bet there are no foreign affairs analysts, diplomats or other such types with years of experience, who’ve built ties over decades, have access to dossiers and intelligence to help them deal in such matters.
Didn’t think so, and it so shows! It’s all a bit like the girl with the Aussie Rules nude pics……puerile.
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 6:47 pm
My drunken short summation on it is this:
The guy craved attention so much it ended killing him and fucked up his life.
Of course it will keep his family in the media and the courts for years.
Not sure that is a good thing though.
A pity he was an Aussie as usually Aussies are good guys and winners, not losers.
End of drunken thought.
Drugs may affect this comment.
Anyone got some P?
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 7:43 pm
Kiwiblog’s home to the best typos/eggcorns in the world: “bringing Saddam to heal” ROTFL!
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 8:03 pm
Is it not ironic that here we are trying to beat up on assange for revealing, as part of a much wider exercise, that Tsvangirai supported sanctions on his own country thus making his reputation collateral damage when the sanctions themselves have collateral damage (as do pretty much any sanctions, I know these are targeted but it can’t be completely avoided).
Assange is a concequentialist and even examples of harm his actions (collateral damage) cause won’t stop him from thinking it is right in the same way that the military cant just stop all military actions in order to reduce the risk of collateral damage to zero. Its a bit of hypocrisy for supporters of state secrets to go on as if collateral damage is completely unaceptable.
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 10:16 pm
Hmm, I do like the hypocrisy.
What Assange is doing is wrong and way out of line.
Yet remember when Drudge outed the fact that Prince Harry was in Afghanistan, what did we hear then, the freedom of speech overrode that of operational security for the yank’s allies.
So what happened to the freedom of speech for all ?
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 10:31 pm
More than a whiff of DPF hypocrisy here, since he was perfectly happy to publish and comment on various cables that attracted his interest. One can’t have “less secrecy” just on one’s own terms.
Personally, I’m concerned that the PM, whom I admire for his bravery, supports sanctions because we all know who gets harmed the most by sanctions, and it’s not the ruling classes.
A few things will change as a result of Assange’s project, including that such cables will often no longer exist and access to same will be much more difficult, so, in a way, Wikileaks could actually be counterproductive.
It’s essentially a one hit weatherbomb, albeit with a lingering tail, but one that ultimately authors it’s own irrelevancy.
Regardless, like the Duke of Wellington, I say publish and be damned!
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 11:23 pm
why are we talking about this clown?
This is the same scumbag who boasted of the murders in kenya following the leak of information about the opposition talks. Assange doesnt give a shit about the consequences of his behaviour, its all about his narcissism and him.
It doesnt hurt him any that its mostly africans who get murdered because of his egomania.
But hey, its for the greater good!
whatever that is, maybe its so Julian can shag more swedish girls, or hang out in more aristocrats mansions – all for the greater good of course…
Vote:December 31st, 2010 at 11:30 pm
Luc you are such a piece of fluff.
Tranny clothes like last new year? That Helen Clarke look really suits you.
The guy went too far.
DPF, though we all know he is a naughty boy, would have had some sense to stop himself getting sent to prison for internet crimes.
Whale Oil even managed to beat the rap.
And even if they did get sent to porridge, these guys would have mates inside for their “free speech” methods.
But Assange went TOO far.
Get it.
On the up side I hear Peugeot are going to launch a new car in his name.
The Assange, the car that pissess EVERYONE off no matter which side of the road.
Just squeeze him, he is like a big Koala!
Vote:January 1st, 2011 at 12:26 am
Why focus on Assange?
Vote:January 1st, 2011 at 8:41 am
Lets say I gave you all of China’s secret cables. You may find a few that in context make it look like China is doing some nasty stuff in africa or whatever (using bablefish).
Now do you
spend several years fishing through the data?
send it all out and see what happens?
send it all to the US government for them to fish through?
pretend you never saw them?
just wondering….
Vote:January 1st, 2011 at 9:08 am
meaning exactly what GNZ2?
Your whole premise is crap. You have no skills to interpret Chinese cables or to give them “context” any more than Assanges mob could give US cables “context”. Nor do you have any god given right to decide to troll the info and release it selectively.
But we do know that if you dared to release Chinese intelligence cables, you and your mate Julian couldnt find a hole deep enough to hide in before the Chinese got to you, and you know damn well that when done, you would have change from a buck postage mailing your remains back to your mum.
That of course is why its easy to pick on the nasty ol’ amerikkans, because the chance of ending up dead is quite low.
Of course the kenyans or Zimbabweans are another matter, but hey they’re just africans, who cares about them.
Vote:January 1st, 2011 at 9:22 am
The reason governments have to have secrets is because of idiots like (you Ben and yes, you Peter George and more spectacuarly GNZ2).
Your failure to see even a remotely bigger picture is staggering.
The world functions because of back room deals done, not by the diplomats in their limousines, but by people using intelligence gathered and quid pro quos done over trade and finance.
The wikileaks idiot is endangering lots of people and countries in a rather sad attention gathering effort and sadly the usual fuck wits jump on the band wagon.
Vote:The usual fuckwits would also be the last to be trusted with any useful information because of what they are.
January 1st, 2011 at 10:00 am
Assange of course has long had a political agenda, look how sympathisers of countless left wing and anti-Western thugs like John Pilger and others have hopped on his bandwagon.
It is the moral relativism of the gormless left who think that all confidential government communications should be known to everyone, yet fail to realise the only ones that get leaked are the Western ones, partly because of language, but also because Assange hasn’t the courage to be a leaker for Russia, China, Iran or North Korea, because he knows he would be a target.
Just like the Cold War, when the so-called “peace movement” demanded Western nuclear disarmament, well funded by Moscow, which knew damned well that if it convinced Western public opinion to disarm, it could sign all sorts of arms limitation agreements and lie – because authoritarian governments do that. Wikileaks only exposes one side, the side it has access to, the side it wants to leak and it is designed to force US withdrawal from world affairs.
Assange, as a likely Asperger’s Syndrome suffering little leftwing creep wouldn’t dare hold responsibility for this sort of thing, he is really too naive and arrogant to ever admit that he is responsible for bad as well as good, let alone being an accessory to theft.
Vote:January 1st, 2011 at 10:44 am
This is another example why Assange is no hero, there will be bad consequences for Zimbabwean democracy and reform etc (and again demonstrates why some of the Wikileak organisers have fallen out with him for his triade against the US).
Plus to cap it all off, he’s also a sexual predator and rapist, and people like John Pilger (and other ‘celebrities’) are lining up with him? Fools, they should be weary of associating with Assange as he’s a polarising figure to not only the “right”, but also on the “left”….
Vote:January 1st, 2011 at 10:52 am
Pauleastbay
Careful. If you let the cat out of the bag then nobody will have anything to talk about.
Vote:January 1st, 2011 at 11:10 am
Oh I quite agree with your premise. The trouble is that they did not, and never will. Your “key” is as much a wish as mine for armed intervention by the rest of the outside world.
Niether were ever going to happen and in light of that sad fact, the power-sharing agreement was the least worst option that was practicable. Zimbabwe has dropped the radar, but it has done so precisely because the outside world (and perhaps more than a few internal groups) could not be bothered grasping the nettle in the first place. The power-sharing deal enabled them to salve their consciences and turn away, hoping perhaps, that Father Time will do the work. They wanted it to drop off the radar.
I don’t like that, and if wanted the get rid of Mugagbe – with fire and bloodshed likely – then I would want to destroy the current deal, and this would be one way to do it. But that’s also quite different to Assange and Wikileaks, who see this as just another powderkeg (like the North Korean situation) into which a spark can be thrown for fun and excitement, just because they can.
Childish brats would be too kind a description for them.
Vote:January 1st, 2011 at 11:47 am
Pauleastbay at 9:22 am
At what level should we allow all this secrecy? It seems you want it international politics. National politics too? Should we do away with transparency, the Official Information Act, no open forum in parliament, and let them wheel and deal in secrecy?
What about local government? By your implication they’d get a lot more done if they organised everything in secret and all they need do is tell us how much to pay in rates?
Some level of secrecy is warranted. But claiming the world functions best in secret so politics should remain secret is NOT looking at the bigger picture at all.
Secrecy is a doubled edged sword, no simple blanket policy can hope to cover it.
Vote:January 1st, 2011 at 12:22 pm
Assange of course has long had a political agenda, look how sympathisers of countless left wing and anti-Western thugs like John Pilger and others have hopped on his bandwagon.
Assange’s belief’s seem to be based on public choice theory, which was a doctrine right-wingers believed in back when they had philosophical ideals instead of a slavish worship of state power and secrecy.
Vote:January 1st, 2011 at 12:34 pm
You’re so stupid Danny. Right wingers have always conceded that defence of the realm is a government responsibility. It is the far left like you who have granted it powers far in excess of this basic function. You have government as your God.
Vote:January 1st, 2011 at 1:10 pm
defence of the realm is a government responsibility
Indeed it is and how have these cables compromised that? Which military technologies have been leaked, which strategies, warplans, tactics or battle-field intelligence? Some probably think the After Action Reviews fall into this category. Get real. They’re low level local engagement pictures, not useful intelligence.
Everything wikileaks has leaked so far has compromised the ease with which hearts and minds can be won in AfPak and that’s the main game, so it has degraded that ability but the US is not going to be leaving AfPak anytime soon so it has time to reshape that if it wants to and furthermore, those AARs didn’t tell anyone who lives there anything they didn’t know already.
I don’t agree with what Assange has done and now others will continue to do, but the net effect is diplomatic cables will be made more secure and they’ll review all the access levels so low-ranking officers will no longer get it. How the hell was a corporal allowed to drive a computer which was hooked up to the material it was hooked up to, which had the ability to burn files on CD’s, is a big question that no-one’s really asked yet. How mental is that? So that will have already changed by now one imagines, in every country, and that’s not a bad thing.
Vote:January 1st, 2011 at 1:30 pm
“Indeed it is and how have these cables compromised that?”
A complete red herring. What principle is applied Reid where an individual outside the province of the Defense Forces, can set themselves up as an arbitrator on what information Defence forces can keep secret and what information should be released to the public?
Manning had a Security Clearance allowing him access to confidential information. He betrayed his oath to the Armed Forces he served in by passing the information to other parties. Merely as a political protest regarding Armed Forces policy on “Don’t ask don’t tell”.
The dirty little traitorous bastard should be shot for treason, and so should Assange given there was confidential material in there from Australian sources.
We cannot have scum like Manning and Assange deciding what is secure information and what is not. Such decisions are the realm of those actually charged with the responsibility for our safety, not some narcissistic publicity seeking creep or some little nancy boy with a grudge against the Army.
Vote:January 1st, 2011 at 1:47 pm
RB, Assange and Manning should not be conflated. Assange is like a newspaper publisher, Manning is and was subject to his job’s requirements which he didn’t meet. He’ll rightly go inside for a very long time indeed possibly for the rest of his life I heard yesterday.
But from an ethical standpoint Assange is no different from any media outlet, or if you think he is, how so. I view this BTW as an ethical not a legal issue but I think he’s got a good case there as well, but ethically its about right to publish and that’s where I’m coming from there.
Vote:January 1st, 2011 at 1:57 pm
“Assange is like a newspaper publisher”
Crap. Have you read his personal pages on those online forums? He’s a two bit low life narcissist with a personal and political agenda. What newspaper has ever printed unauthorized material stolen from Defense force computers?
Vote:January 1st, 2011 at 2:04 pm
“Regardless, like the Duke of Wellington, I say publish and be damned!” – Luc “I dont care about anything other than my own self-righteousness” Hansen
And if Wikileaks ever gets hold of a secret list of dissidents working to bring about democracy in China, they should publish that, and be damned.
And if Wikileaks ever gets hold of an incorrect cable that says South Korea is planning to assassinate the leadership of North Korea, they should publish that, and be damned.
Wait, its not Wikileaks that will be damned. Its other people. And we know how those other people are likely to be, and its not the ruling classes.
Vote:January 1st, 2011 at 2:06 pm
“He’s a two bit low life narcissist with a personal and political agenda.”
Redbaiter, I am pretty sure a little light googling will turn up a comment in which you describe a Newspaper journalist in those same words.
Vote:January 1st, 2011 at 2:16 pm
“will turn up a comment in which you describe a Newspaper journalist in those same words”
He’d have to be publishing confidential Defence Force information though wouldn’t he?
Vote:January 1st, 2011 at 2:38 pm
Kimble none of those arguments holds water. If they don’t want something published, use adequate security – duh.
It’s not the publisher’s fault for publishing it, it’s the content protector’s fault for allowing them to disappear. The person who executed that act was not the publisher.
How else can you have freedom of the press, if you don’t allow things critical of a govt, any govt, to be published? No-one has suggested to my knowledge these cables are falsified and unless that is established, wikileaks is not responsible.
If you want a response to the issues you raise, then you need to take into account the whole equation which includes the good as well as the bad.
Vote:January 1st, 2011 at 2:51 pm
So in Reid’s world, nobody would ever be punished for trading in stolen property. The guy who stole the TV would be prosecuted, but the fence who bought it from him would be free of any criminal charge.
On second thoughts, maybe Reid is saying even the original thief should not be charged. He’s channeling incompetent brainwashed cops who maintain its your fault if your car is stolen, if you leave your keys in your car. The actual stealer commits no crime.
Vote:January 1st, 2011 at 3:04 pm
“It’s not the publisher’s fault for publishing it, it’s the content protector’s fault for allowing them to disappear.”
So its not the rapists fault for the attack, it was the lack of security around the young girl?
No. Once Wikileaks has the information, THEY have the power to decide what to do with it. And with that power comes responsibility for the outcome of its exercise.
“you need to take into account the whole equation which includes the good as well as the bad.”
Like I have said, the good DOES need to be weighed against the bad. But that requires an honest appraisal of the bad. Instead we get people reflexively defending Wikileaks because of a presumed “good” they have done. I dont think the ledger automatically balances that way. I think the harm done to good things can be of far more importance than the harm done to bad things.
Vote:January 1st, 2011 at 3:14 pm
Once Wikileaks has the information, THEY have the power to decide what to do with it. And with that power comes responsibility for the outcome of its exercise.
Quite agree Kimble, they do have the power to decide what to do with it, and therein lies your problem, for wikileaks are under no obligation whatsoever, neither legal nor ethical, to not publish it.
I think the harm done to good things can be of far more importance than the harm done to bad things.
Possibly time will prove you to be right and I wrong on this, but we won’t know till the whole lot is released and the final assessments have been made. I think your rapist example is a bit emotive but if you want to use it then the “rapist” in this case is Manning, not Assange and it’s emotive because it implies a crime has been committed and in this case, Assange hasn’t done anything except break a US Federal law and who said the US was the law-setter for the entire world?
As I’ve said above, I don’t think they should have been published either, just not for the reasons you’re suggesting.
Vote:January 1st, 2011 at 4:00 pm
“for wikileaks are under no obligation whatsoever, neither legal nor ethical, to not publish it.”
Ethics arent binding, so there isnt ever an externally enforced “ethical obligation”. However, if you are ethical then you do bind yourself by ethics. By your very argument Wikileaks are proven to be unethical. If they were ethical they would have a self imposed ethical obligation to release only information harming bad things.
Vote:January 1st, 2011 at 4:50 pm
Er, no. wikileaks isn’t required to abide by any ethical standard because none apply in this case. If you think there is one then what is it?
Vote:January 1st, 2011 at 5:59 pm
Nigel,
“you and your mate Julian couldnt find a hole deep enough”
most of the substantive points have been made later in the thread (for example that assange is like any other journalist with an opinion and that secrecy is not always a good thing and we are sure you don’t actually believe that it is) but is your point that you are a coward and would never do anything because it was the right thing to do if there was danger involved? especially if it was China?
Vote:January 1st, 2011 at 6:14 pm
Anyway the US is not going to kill a person who reveals their secrets in large part because they aren’t able to keep them as well (robust media, seperation of powers and a diverse group of decisionmakers). If all of a sudden they were able to keep secrets they would immediatly become less careful about killing people (for example afganis for the US or drug dealers for those countries that have that as a big problem). In some ways that might be a good thing (ie you might ex judicially kill a few people and save a few others) but you are sacrificing the thing you want to protect in order to protect it. that should trouble you at least a little bit.
Vote:January 1st, 2011 at 6:41 pm
No property was stolen – one of the reasons they are having problems coming up with charges that would have any chance of sticking) – so this is quite different . It has been well examined already, regarding the right of the press to publish information. If the press were able to be locked up for publishing passed on information then they would function far less effectively than they do now. Like it or not, freedom of the press is an important component of a functioning democracy.
Vote:January 1st, 2011 at 6:43 pm
So in Reid’s world, nobody would ever be punished for trading in stolen property.
Bzzzzt, RB.
For Assange has not traded in stolen property. This is the central point. He is acting, as any blog, or any website is entitled to do, as a publisher of content. Take it leave it. Believe it or not. Whatever. This is how the www works, RB. It’s how you’re allowed to publish your blog, it’s how this blog is allowed to publish controversy. You stop wikileaks, you compromise that principle. Are you prepared to do that?
Pete, snap. Let’s hope RB says something amusing about the both of us, as he has been wont to do…
Vote:January 1st, 2011 at 7:21 pm
Yawn….
Vote:January 1st, 2011 at 7:28 pm
Bugger. Are you mellowing out this year RB?
Vote:January 1st, 2011 at 7:48 pm
Yes Reid; its scary. He’s making sense on this one and there’s been no mention of Palin or the Kenyan so far. How long will this last?
Taken to the nth degree, I uncover the means to destroy the world. I publish it. After all, its “news” isn’t it. Public’s right to know and all that.
Vote:January 1st, 2011 at 8:13 pm
the means to destroy the world
It’s already well known, davinci. Resonant frequency. If you set up a vibration with any object you’ll shatter it or bring it down if its opposite its resonant frequency. All matter vibrates, including the Earth itself. Research Tesla and see what he did in this field, it’s quite interesting especially how they use it today.
Let’s hope Al-Qaida and/or Wikileaks don’t get hold of it…
Vote:January 1st, 2011 at 8:25 pm
What if you uncover (or Wikileaks gives you) the means to save the world? Publish or not?
Vote:January 1st, 2011 at 8:43 pm
Fuck no Pete. What are ya? Some kinda peace-loving save-the-world-if-it-needs-to-be pinko commie bastard? Well, are ya?
Vote:January 1st, 2011 at 9:34 pm
Don’t think that exists reid.
Vote:January 1st, 2011 at 10:33 pm
Sorry for the aggressive tone Pete, didn’t mean it like that.
Vote:January 2nd, 2011 at 2:49 am
“wikileaks isn’t required to abide by any ethical standard because none apply in this case. If you think there is one then what is it?”
Hang on, you were saying that wikileaks was acting like a publisher/journalist. Journalists have a code of ethics, and part of that is usually something to do with “not releasing information that does more harm than good”.
That “code of ethics” is not exclusive to journalism, the code merely collates relevant ethical considerations into a group. They are still good ethical standards for everyone.
In this case Wikileaks released information that caused more harm than good, without any consideration of the specific benefit or harm from that release. That in itself is unethicalm surely.
Vote:January 2nd, 2011 at 2:51 am
“What if you uncover (or Wikileaks gives you) the means to save the world? Publish or not?”
Um, publish, of course. What harm is there?
Vote:January 2nd, 2011 at 6:24 am
“What if you uncover (or Wikileaks gives you) the means to save the world”
Is there money in it PG?
Reid – yes of course, how silly of me. The 1961 Vanguard.
Vote:January 2nd, 2011 at 6:34 am
The problem is “good” can be very subjective, it can depend on “good for who?” (good for shareholders of the media company, or good for ratings, good for the west, left/right, Christians/Muslims etc) – and it can be difficult (perhaps impossible) to predict what good or harm could come from any release of information, due to unknown reaction and unexpected consequences.
Should media outlets consider every possibility, seek and assess reaction from every interested party and not publish anything that could possibly do any harm? That’s impossible to achieve and expect.
Competitive instinct often rules – “if I don’t publish first someone else will anyway and get the credit”.
Wikileaks highlights how selective most people are, they applaud leaks that suit their own prejudices and grizzle about anything they don’t side with. The wind has been blowing in all directions.
An ultimate dilemma could be if a media outlet receives secret proof that a large asteroid is heading for earth and Bruce Willis is unavailable.
- do people have the right to know so they can choose how to spend their last few days?
- or would it cause too much fear, panic and mayhem?
- do you only let those people know who can handle the news responsibly?
A variation on this – an asteroid is approaching that will only obliterate one country. It’s impossible to evacuate more than about 1% of the population in time.
That won’t happen in our lifetimes. Media decisions are made on much more mundane matters. They have to tend towards release rather than withhold, otherwise there would be too much uncertainty and self censorship and manipulated censorship – “if you publish that it will harm the country” when it’s more likely to just harm some politician’s reputation.
Most people seem to accept that some level of secrecy is necessary. Should all politicians have the responsibility to decide what warrants secrecy? Or just some self selected politicians – after all, they know what’s best for everyone. Or take it out of the hands of politicians, and leave it to the secret service personnel – who are selected and paid by politicians?
Vote:January 2nd, 2011 at 6:44 am
Is there money in it PG?
You’re not suggesting a free market are you?
Vote:January 2nd, 2011 at 6:55 am
PG – all you’re doing is identifying philosophical/ethical dilemmas in arriving at the right/wrong decision and identifying the grey zone that will always apply in media reporting that is ultimately driven by competition (money).
There is no grey zone here at all; the issue here isn’t bound up in detailed pro/con arguments. Assange did something without any consideration at all of the consequences and without even knowing what he was releasing. All he knew was that the shit would hit the fan bigtime and he would get his name splattered across the globe when in fact, he should be getting his arse splattered across the globe.
Vote:January 2nd, 2011 at 6:56 am
PG – the truth is out there – at a price!
Vote:January 2nd, 2011 at 10:58 am
thedavincimode,
Assange has a fairly detailed world view. he may be mistaken (and he may also be driven by fame or money – probably more by fame) but it isnt as if he has not thought about the impacts of his actions. Simply he believes that secrecy increases the centralization of power in the hands of those at the nodes of power and that this is somthing one should resist. Most of the individuals here probably have somewhat libertarian or ‘liberal’ leanings so in principle you should all agree that his motives are correct.
Also the basis of his argument that in principle secrecy increases this centralization is sound (I find it hard to imagine you can refute it, but by all means try). All that leaves is the possibility that the specific example or methodology is net harmful (which is possible but I think not proven).
Vote:January 3rd, 2011 at 6:24 pm
Speak for your blimmin’ self! He’s a thief to start with so anything he’s done since is, or should be, understood in the light of that fact…
If you’re correct then his belief system is probably more akin to anarchism.
Wake up man! How many failures do there have to be to discard leftist social theories…
Vote:January 4th, 2011 at 1:04 pm
Get rid of Mugabe? And replace him with who precisely? To achieve what?
Zimbabwe has been a lost cause ever since the bloody IMF and its Michael Porter clones purposefully screwed its agricultural and manufacturing economy [Mugabe's cash cows] by insisting it do away with protective tariffs twenty years ago.
Vote:January 16th, 2011 at 10:13 am
As though there could be any peace in Zimbabwe while Mugabe was still leader anyway. Sitting around under sanctions was never going to bring real peace. Even with their agreements in place Mugabe is still burning down peoples houses over there who disagree with him.
Vote: